Good Morning! I'd like to start off by thanking you for attending my presentation today. As you can see, I'm currently the Physics and Math Librarian at Carnegie Mellon University and the outgoing Chair of the WVLA Special Library Division. That needs some explaining...up until mid-August, I was the Team Leader of library services at the Federal Energy Technology Center in Morgantown -- a U.S. Department of Energy facility.
At last years WVLA Special Library Division meeting, we were going over some of the reasons that the Special Library Division was struggling to generate interest. Among the reasons we came up with was "special libraries were so varied that it is difficult to find program topics that will appeal to everyone." I asked for ideas and settled on the topic of electronic reference as one that would appeal to most special librarians and hopefully to a variety of types of libraries.
Let me give you an overview of what I'm about to present.
[NEXT]
I'll start out by stating the problem as I've experienced it. Then I'll try to give you an idea of how big the problem has become. I'll approach the idea of policy guidelines for electronic reference as a way to begin gaining control of the problem. I'll move on to discuss what can and has been done beyond obtaining a simple e-mail address that's supplied on business card, a bookmark, or a flyer. This leads right into a discussion of web forms as used in electronic reference. I'll follow with a discussion of a couple of topics that I feel are shining examples of how electronic reference is evolving. These examples are the Question Board of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Temple University's TalkBack service. Then I'll offer some closing thoughts and allow the balance of our time for questions and discussion.
[NEXT]
So, is electronic reference a problem? Well, it can be -- and in many libraries it definitely is. At FETC, the site had VAX e-mail for years. It wasn't a particularly simple system to use and most of us opted for the telephone. Then in rapid succession, we obtained a site-wide local area network, a graphical user interface, Windows, voice mail, and then a very simple to use, intuitive, site-wide e-mail system. At this point, internal e-mail throughout FETC really started to pick up - it became the communication tool of choice. Before we know what happened we began receiving reference questions via e-mail. Then the floodgates opened; we got internet access. Did I mention how easy it is to forward an e-mail? Did I need to?
Does the problem seem a bit familiar to some of you? Numerous seems to fit? Have you found that -- at least early on -- that the questions lacked needed information? Perhaps it was a search request that was obviously too broad or one that needed further clarification. You send a reply to your patron for more information that's read three hours later or two days later or when it's too late! The librarian and the patron are beginning to wish for a way to facilitate the process. The phone? I'll have my voice mail call your voice mail -- they'll do lunch!
We all know that what's missing is the all important reference interview. We could use some real-time interaction...to get that patron to tell us more about their information needs. But what about that employee on a hectic business trip, the folks at that branch office a couple of time zones away, that growing body of distance ed students, or that genealogical researcher from thousands of miles away? Somehow we've got to find a way to make electronic reference work better...
Eileen Abels, Associate Professor of the College of Library and Information Services at the University of Maryland, has looked into the art of providing reference service via e-mail and published her findings in the Spring 1996 issue of RQ. It's a great read for anyone performing reference via this medium. In her research, she categorizes the various approaches that were developed by search intermediaries. The most successful strategy -- the "Systematic Approach" -- possibly gave birth to another topic that we'll discuss later -- the use of web forms by many libraries.
[NEXT]
The problems we were experiencing at FETC were beginning to impact services. I'd often get five gnarly e-mail questions per day. This was in addition to what we received via phone and in person. On top of that, our parent organization started an "Ask a Researcher" feature on our external web site that started receiving questions from everywhere. When the researchers were in need of help, we were asked to assist. It was my interaction with Tom George of FETC that led to my exploration of this topic. You can see that this question is marginally related to the business lines of FETC. It dealt with a type of fuel cell that fell outside the expertise of our researchers. Although I felt I gave some pretty good advice, it did take considerable time and thought to prepare a response. Tom called to thank me for the response and we discussed the whole experience. We thought that policies or limits would be in order for our responses to the world. It gave me added motivation for preparing a program for WVLA.
I'd be curious to know what levels of e-mail or electronically delivered questions you're receiving ... anyone? For those of you with external customers - what would happen if you advertised? Has anyone here aggressively advertised? You see ... all this happened by just trying to keep up with the daily workload. We hadn't even marketed the service. It just happened...we lost control!
[NEXT]
A general policy statement is going to really help keep the scope of the service under control. Determine it ahead of time if you can...I suspect many of us in the special library world were caught without one. The very basic information that's recommended for a policy is discussed in Robert Hulshof's article in the January 1999 issue of Information Outlook. My own list is somewhat modified from his. I added "Do you charge?" and "expected response time." He suggested a statement of prioritization in addition to what you see here.
The extent of the community served varies to both extremes. I've called the extremes "the long" and "the short." "The long" in this case is the Internet Public Library. Their service is extended to the world. With this service comes a long set of criteria ... but one has to admire their scope. I actually tried getting them to find me the lyrics or possibly a recording of the "Ballad of Big Bad Irving" (the 142nd fastest gun {dramatic pause} in the west). I received an error message when I submitted the question that asked me to e-mail the webmaster with the text of the error that I encountered. I did and he responded that their battery power supply for their server had caught on fire! He told me that damage was localized and that they would be operational again soon. Wow! I thought I'd get some boring reply that they'd restarted a malfunctioning server...
On the short end of community service is what I found at the MIT libraries! Here, even if I try to submit a question I can't -- they've got IP authentication on their "Ask a Librarian" service! That's what I call effective!
A good example for charging for a service can be found at the AIP's Niels Bohr Library. It would appear that simple quick answer questions would be answered at little or no cost. They'd only begin to charge for the more difficult, time consuming tasks. Expected response time is a courteous item to include in a policy. For example, at CMU we indicate that we'll respond by the end of the next business day. By procedure, we've been checking for messages at 9:00 am, 1:00 pm and 5:00 pm.
[NEXT]
Now I'd like to move on to situations where one would provide patrons with more than just an e-mail address. One could establish a web presence and easily provide a link allowing someone to e-mail you from their web browser software. Group e-mail addresses can be created and shared by all members of a reference staff.
At CMU we've done that, but recognized that doing so allowed for a disgruntled employee to embarass us or make threats to someone and we'd only be able to narrow our suspects to a group - not an individual. As a result, we've used a feature in our e-mail software that allows us to each create the same "identity." This allows us to collectively track all incoming and outgoing messages for the identity. It allows us to have anonymity for our staff - when desired. People providing reference service usually don't mind if people know them by name. Library staff that send e-mail overdue and fine notices need their anonymity. The important thing is that we all know that a message can easily be tracked by our systems folks back to the originator.
Another idea is to allow the patron to pick the appropriate tier of e-mail reference for their question. At CMU we have our shared identities for the first level of service that guarantees a speedy response, but we've also provided for more involved questions via direct access to a liaison librarian.
[NEXT]
I'd like to move on to a technique that allows for an up-front attempt at soliciting a response to an electronic reference question. This technique has the ability to keep Eileen Abel's "systematic approach" in constant use. It's important to note that with web forms the patron doesn't really need access to an e-mail account -- they don't even need an e-mail account! A web form allows for service to patrons that are simply using their public library internet access. Thus it has the capability to reach a larger segment of the population.
For the librarian, provided that the form is designed well, the web form can ensure that you get all of the information that you need for most reference transactions. This begins to regain some of the librarian to patron relationship. There's even an added benefit of being able to gather statistical information on patrons.
Here are some examples to illustrate these points. This example is from Dakota State University. As you can see, it's really only a web page with an e-mail address. It could use a form, but as is, it is providing an alternate means of communication. A form would definitely help the process. Here are some other examples that get progressively better. Example one is Babson College. It's a very good example, but they could stand to make use of a "textarea" or multiline box for the patron to use for entering the longer pieces of data. It's hard to write when what you've just written in the previous sentence is already out of the scroll box! Example two is a fine example from Webster University that has many of the features of the ultimate form. Another good one to look at for form features would be the Internet Public Library web site from earlier in my presentation.
You might also want to read a recent article on web forms in the April 1999 issue of College and Research Libraries News by Annette Haines and Alison Grodzinski.
Now, before I move along, please keep in mind that the next screen is slightly in jest. I may have exaggerated just a bit.
[NEXT]
Ah, the dreaded reference librarian...a predator to be avoided by the cautious undergraduate.
"QB" -- the Question Board -- was introduced to allow people to ask questions that they might be embarassed to ask in person or to aid the truly timid patron. QB started in the early 1970's. It allowed for the anonymous submission and response to whatever answerable question was asked. Fondly remembered by alumni, the greater UIUC community is thrilled by its new web presence. The original box and bulletin board is still in use as well. QB online is discussed in a November 1998 College and Research Libraries News article by Wei Ma and Joyce Wright. This is definitely a great idea made even better with technology.
The web forms and "QB" are a step in the right direction, but they're not interactive in real time. Besides, anyone out there other than me hate forms? What if we had something similar to 'chat' that allowed for a dialog to take place between the librarian and the patron?
[NEXT]
Temple University has started a service called TalkBack. It uses something called paging software. Basically the service is activated only during reference desk hours. The patron initiates the conversation via their web browser. If all goes well...we're about to take it for a spin.
[FOLLOW SCRIPT FROM SAM STORMONT/MARC MEOLA OF TEMPLE UNIVERSITY FOR DEMO REFERENCE QUESTION - INTENT IS TO DEMONSTRATE THE INTERACTIVE CAPABILITY OF THE SERVICE]
[NEXT]
It's important to note the efforts to electronically reintroduce the only part of a typical in person reference interview that is missing. The key thing that is missing with everything we've seen so far is non-verbal communication. The attempts of the University of Michigan and UC-Irvine are described in a Summer 1998 article in Library Trends by Bernie Sloan. I couldn't find any late breaking information from either institution's web sites, but Sloan's article will give you insight into what took place.
Does anyone want to share news of any other project that I didn't uncover?
[MOVE ON IF NO DISCUSSION]
Let me close by saying that the undertaking of a presentation is never without deserved thanks to those who helped to make it happen.
[NEXT]
To Lynn Berard, my new boss, for her support, encouragement and the lead that led me to the TalkBack feature at Temple. To Rita Mappin and Missy Harvey who helped me to quickly figure out enough of the vast CMU computing landscape. To Angie Locknar for sharing her personal copies of recent journals...and an office -- poor woman! To Mary Martin for her last minute help with providing overhead backups and handouts. To Sam Stormont and Marc Meola of Temple University for the great demo of TalkBack. To Jackie -- very special thanks for her love, support, advice and for filling out all those forms that I hate so much!
Finally, thank you for attending. I hope this talk encourages you to do more to make your electronic reference more effective -- to make it start working for you. Please note that I've place the text of my speech on my web site at CMU. I've also placed the bibliography that I've given you today on the web site. Thank you!